Victory In Iraq? Not If the Mainstream Media Can Help It

Change font size:  A |  A

There was a time when conservatives took the mainstream media to task for not covering stories of success in Iraq. I vaguely remember a time past when Laura Ingraham challenged MSM reporters to do the unthinkable such as leave the green zone and talk to Iraqi's so they could put a more honest and balanced perspective on the new. This challenge was met with the kind of puerile outrage and denial that you might expect to get from your child when they are caught doing something both of you know to be unacceptable. The upside of this was that we saw a brief attempt to get reporters out into the field where they could at least say they are reporting from first hand knowledge. It didn't necessarily change the bias in the reports but at least it tempered those reports with an occasional success story even in times where success may be hard to find. I believe the tide on that reporting may have turned when ABC anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt were critically injured in an ambush near Taji. The unfortunate aspect of this turnabout is that any success we may achieve is now easily buried by the surge in negativism that has resulted partially due to mismanagement of the war and in large part to the mainstream media that has been emboldened to continue its role as a Bush opposition force on the heels of the November 7th election rout. The press has decided that we can not win in Iraq and any indication that may point to the contrary simply doesn't get reported. But not everyone in the media is playing along with that game. Two stories appeared in print this morning that deserve a wider distribution. The first one is an editorial that appeared in the Washington Post that takes Congress to task for sending Gen. Petraeus of to Iraq as the new commander on the ground while simultaneously undermining his efforts with a no confidence vote in the Senate.

ON TUESDAY nearly every member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warmly endorsed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, and a number wished him success or “Godspeed” in his mission. Yesterday some of the same senators voted for a resolution that opposes the increase of troops for Gen. Petraeus’s command — even though the general testified that he could not accomplish his mission without the additional forces and hinted that such a resolution could encourage the enemy. Such is the muddle of Congress on Iraq: A majority may soon go on record opposing the new offensive in Baghdad even while encouraging the commander who leads it.

The second story is even more important because it demonstrates that Congress and the media may be intentionally ignoring reports that Al Qaeda is taking a beating in Iraq due to more sophisticated intelligence gathering methods, improved training of Iraqi forces and a waning support of the insurgency by war weary Iraqi's. This news is being reported in the New York Sun and it is an important read because we are not hearing this sort of information being reported by the press or our elected leaders.

There has been a flurry of press reports recently about insurgents battling American and Iraqi security forces on Haifa Street in Baghdad, and around the rural town of Buhruz in Diyala Province. These same insurgents also claimed to have shot down a Black Hawk helicopter near Buhruz. At the same time, the Americans and Iraqis are declaring a major victory as evidenced by the increased number of dead or captured militants, and the uncovering of massive weapons caches. So, what is going on? What needs to be understood is the central role that Al Qaeda — or more accurately its successor organization, a group called the Islamic State of Iraq — is playing on these fronts and the diminishing role of all the other insurgent groups. The wider Sunni insurgency — the groups beyond Al Qaeda — is being slowly, and surely, defeated. The average insurgent today feels demoralized, disillusioned, and hunted. Those who have not been captured yet are opting for a quieter life outside of Iraq. Al Qaeda continues to grow for the time being as it cannibalizes the other insurgent groups and absorbs their most radical and hardcore fringes into its fold. The Baathists, who had been critical in spurring the initial insurgency, are becoming less and less relevant, and are drifting without a clear purpose following the hanging of their idol, Saddam Hussein. Rounding out this changing landscape is that Al Qaeda itself is getting a serious beating as the Americans improve in intelligence gathering and partner with more reliable Iraqi forces. In other words, battling the insurgency now essentially means battling Al Qaeda. This is a major accomplishment. Last October, my sources began telling me about rumblings among the insurgent strategists suggesting that their murderous endeavor was about to run out of steam. This sense of fatigue began registering among mid-level insurgent commanders in late December, and it has devolved to the rank and file since then. The insurgents have begun to feel that the tide has turned against them. In many ways, the timing of this turnaround was inadvertent, coming at the height of political and bureaucratic mismanagement in Washington and Baghdad. A number of factors contributed to this turnaround, but most important was sustained, stay-the-course counterinsurgency pressure. At the end of the day, more insurgents were ending up dead or behind bars, which generated among them a sense of despair and a feeling that the insurgency was a dead end.

Only time will tell if this news turns out to be true. One thing is certain, we may never hear about a U.S. victory if certain elements in the press and Congress get their way and convince the American people that Iraq is already lost. I'm not asking for embellishment here - I'm just asking for them to honestly report the news. Is that so much to ask? This article has been crossposted at Webloggin.